My dowdy prediction

A week has elapsed since I wrote about Maureen Dowd. I thought by now she would have acknowledged an intentional 43-word copy job, followed by a sorry-I-forgot-to-attribute apology.  I think that's all it would have taken to make this saga go away.

Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.

I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe, which is why this episode is extraordinary.

Maureen Dowd, Wikipedia

The essence of her account is this: After communicating with a friend about another person's work, she plopped some sentences in her column and then discovered she was using the same 43 words after bloggers told her.  Here's what she wrote to explain her actions (repeated from Michael Calderone's space at Politico.com): "i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow."

My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times.  I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little from the Times itself. 

I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend.  My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words she borrowed.

I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s).  So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal.  Perhaps too easily.

However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical.  When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.

Is Maureen Dowd in trouble?

The answer is yes.

Forty-three words without attribution, a poor excuse and by now, I suspect, a truth audit of her work is well underway.

Had Ann Coulter done this, the New York Times (and perhaps Ms. Dowd herself) would have hung her from the highest limb. My prediction is that Ms. Dowd will either come out and declare she knew what she was doing after all and apologize profusely within the next week, or she's finished as a nationally-syndicated columnist.

French lessons

We are fortunate to have a young student from France living with us these days. It is her first visit to the US and we are learning as much (or more) from her, as she is learning from us.

Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.

Where are our children learning how to behave this way?  Oh, that's right -- it's us.

Saved or created? That is the question.

It hit me while driving someplace and listening to the radio, maybe a month ago.  The President was talking about the outcome of his stimulus package while using the now oft-repeated phrase about three and half million jobs being, "saved or created."

(Freepik image)

I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...

How does one measure a job saved?  How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?

Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved?  It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.

What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved".  That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the 'metric' can't be measured. 

_________________________________________________________

Submitted to US Senator Herb Kohl moments ago...

"Dear Senator Kohl,

I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.

The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.

I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.

Respectfully,


John J. Maddente"

The individual and our economic crisis

If you had never met Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, you'd be hard pressed to spot him in a crowded room.  Mr. Walker is an average-looking man, with plain features and an unassuming demeanor. Even his name is common. He looks like millions of other guys. I made his acquaintance last year after he introduced himself before a debate with his election opponent, Ms. Lena Taylor.


Scott Walker
Wikipedia image

Yes, a common guy he is, but don't be fooled -- Mr. Walker packs a wallop and his piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts" defines his fiscal moorings and shows why he has drawn acclaim among conservatives and scorn from progressives.

Mr. Walker mentioned what other politicians know -- but often fail to highlight -- which is that our current fiscal calamities, were abetted by individuals -- not just banks, not just regulators, not just mortgage brokers, not just government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,

"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure." 

Amen.  I've been dismayed by the lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing.  In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.

There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes to buy stuff they couldn't afford. Here are those arguments:

Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."

Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are appropriating money from responsible Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate that pattern.

The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case easy money), then encourage him or her to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. And in the cases I reference, we're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.

Many foreclosure so-called "victims" are personally responsible for their circumstances. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending.  Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, lost their jobs, became seriously ill, or were improperly foreclosed upon -- but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who suffered a foreclosure (I ask rhetorically)?  

Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."

Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current level of value. The continuing collapse of our financial system and our way of life, which appears to be careening toward Euro-Socialism, is as disturbing as the trajectory of home values.

However, if we allow the eggs to break and take our necessary economic pain, the values of our homes could appreciate again one day. Things get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless hangover.

Although the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship -- he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the debt can down the road. It's immoral and stupid.

Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to leverage our future, reward his supporters like public teachers' unions and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford.  It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support him. I hope like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.

Right now, I don't see a stronger one.

What sequence of events caused the mess?

Hedge fund executive Oscar Schafer in a Barron's interview (January 12, 2009, "Hang on Tight!") described our current economic condition thus: "The world is experiencing a giant margin call."

Yes, a giant margin call enabled by easy credit extended to millions of people who couldn't afford as much home as they purchased, or as much cashed out equity to finance a lifestyle they couldn't afford, before defaulting on their mortgages. 

These mortgages would be bundled into what equated to securitized time bombs gobbled up by over-leveraged financial institutions. 

How did it all happen?


Policy makers in Washington wanted to guarantee home ownership for anyone with a pulse. Then the Fed left open the spigot of cheap money by keeping rates too low for too long and America became intoxicated by illusory home price appreciation. Money center moguls and central bankers made enormous bets upon this whole sorry misuse of credit, until the system collapsed.  

Millions of people, who either ought to have remained renters until their income and assets could justify their mortgage, or who should have purchased more modest homes and received loans at fixed rates, were enabled by government-coddled institutions like Fannie and Freddie and populist legislation to "invest in our communities". 

The risks they took (policy makers, investment banks...and millions of  Americans), have poisoned the well that the rest of us must drink from -- perhaps for decades. Now we hear that the other shoe to drop will come from commercial credit busts, or the next highest risk level of mortgages above subprime.  

Grandma warned us when we were children.  If you can't afford it -- don't buy it. If you can't afford to lose it -- don't risk it. In short, live within your means.  Greed is the same thing that destroyed Rome. How will we get treatment and beat our addiction to debt before we all go down in flames?